the investigation into solar energy company solyndra. republican congressman tim murphy, who serves on the energy committee, will join us. then new york congressman charlie rangel on president obama's debt reduction plan. and later, a conversation with eli lehrer of the heartland institute and ben leg co-authored an article about ways to protect the environment cut government programs. host: president obama will give his third address to the united nations general assembly. live coverage on line starting at 9:00 a.m. eastern time on c- span.org. the president is expected to address the middle east peace process. the president spoke yesterday on

libya, touting it as a model of what the international community can achieve. that's where we will begin this morning, with your take on the role of the u.n. and world affairs. >> libya is a lesson in what the international community can achieve when we stand together as one. i said at the beginning of this process, we cannot and should not intervene every time there is injustice in the world, yet it is also true that there are problems where the world could have and should have summoned the will to prevent the killing of innocents on a horrific scale. we are forever haunted by the atrocities we did not prevent and the lives we did not save. this time was different. this time we, through the united nations, found the courage and the collective will to act.

host: let me begin with the front page of "the washington times." they said this. host: let me show you the u.n. membership. we go to their website. 192 current members of the u.n. and there are 50 countries that signed the u.n. charter in 1945. there are five permanent members, the u.s., russia, china, the united kingdom, and france. the u.s. pays 22% of that, or just over $1 billion. the european union, japan, and

the u.s. to punitively pay 80% of the total u.n. annual budget. we get your thoughts on what you think the role of the u.n. is on world affairs. let me read a little bit more from "the washington times" article. "the country's temporary leader said additional humanitarian assistance would be needed to bolster the troubled country." "the cost of american efforts were slated to total about $1 billion in operations cost and

ammunition." host: touting the libyan situation as of what the united nations can do when all the countries come together. we want to get your take on that. richie is an independent in massachusetts. richie, what do you think? caller: i think the u.n. is good, in ways, but we really do not need it anymore because it just cost us money. we pay more than 22%. i do not care what the politicians tell us. i know we pay a lot more. we have a bigger role. that just gives us -- you know, we put them in first.

u.n.s how i'd look at the -- like preseason in baseball, and then we go in and take over the country. host: we showed you the budget. $5 billion. some people say that's not a lot of money when you look at a corporation's budget or a country's budget on total. $5 billion spent by the u.n. to try to help out with humanitarian efforts or security efforts, like the situation in libya. caller: i agree it is not that much money. like, going to libya and stuff like that -- you know, they were going in there to help them from

killing their own people. we kill babies every day in our country. it is kind of odd to me. i thank you for letting me speak. host: we will hear from a democrat. bill in st. louis, missouri. good morning, bill. caller: everything the u.n. has done it has been a total failure. just look at iraq. everyone knew it was a lie. this whole fiasco in libya is just another life. the u.n. does nothing. what about the people in palestine that are being murdered by israel? it is useless. host: let me show you the latest lori on the palestinian's bid -- latest story on the palestinian's bid for statehood.

this is "the wall street journal."

host: this story continues inside "the wall street journal." "members such as china, russia, south africa, and lebanon are believed to be firmly in the palestinian camp. france and britain could abstain."

host: that is the latest from "the wall street journal" about u.s. strategy toward the palestinian bid for statehood. an independent in carson city, nevada. we are talking about the overall role of the u.n. in world affairs. what do you think? caller: i do not understand how the united states gets one vote, yet a country that says some outrageous thing with the exact same vote -- gets the same thing. i guess i just feel that we have got to all come together and do the right thing. host: you are breaking up.

we will go on to a democrat in charleston, west virginia. harold, you are on the air. good morning. caller: you were talking about the fact that the united states pays around 22% of the budget of the united nations. host: right. caller: like with everything else with foreign affairs, the united states never seems to get 22% and return for their investment. you were talking about the palestinian state and everything. president obama, he has been running around now ever since he got in office. it seems like every time he turns around, something kind of puts israel in a bad light. he sits there and he says he wants them to do this. he wants them to do that. when something comes up when it has to do with the palestinian state, all the sudden, a day late and a dollar short, he seems to be telling them, "no,

you are not going to do this now." host: what about using the veto power that the u.s. has as a permanent member of the u.n. to stop their efforts? when we are talking about the overall role of the u.n., should we continue to be a member of the u.n. so we have that veto power? caller: that seems to be a last resort. had he been doing what he should have been doing all along, it would have never gotten to this point. host: if you go to wikipedia .org, this is what it says about the u.n..

"in regular meetings throughout the year. the organization has six organs. the security council, economic and social council for assisting and promoting economic cooperation and development, the secretary, for providing studies needed by the u.n., and the international court of justice, the primary judicial organ in the trust the council, which is currently inactive. others include the world health organization, the world food program, and the secretary- general, currently ban ki-moon of south korea.

tom, a republican in new jersey. good morning. caller: good morning. i want to understand -- how come c-span does not have somebody on their to -- on there to have the agenda 21 program and what it means. host: what is that? caller: agenda 21? sustainable development. i already have some people i know that have already run into this problem. they cannot sell their land. they have to pay taxes on it. host: what does this have to do with the u.n. and world affairs? caller: if you google agenda 21 and look at the things that come up, you will see what i'm talking about. host: all right. let me go to rick, an

independent in ohio. caller: you were just reading the definition of the u.n. we have 800 military bases throughout the world. have 100,000 military contractors. you have black water -- you have blackwater. you have three legal wars. if you look at nazi germany, it took all the assets of society and funnel them into the military industrial complex. you can look at the past 10 years, or the beginning of the bush administration. you have something on there about the solyndra investigation. look at a connection between dick cheney, halliburton. host: we're going to be talking about that at about 7:45 eastern

time with tim murphy, a republican of pennsylvania. solyndra executives will testify on friday before the house energy and commerce committee. the lawyers for the executives said late yesterday that they are going to take their fifth amendment right at that hearing. we will talk more about that later. want to show you this headline, also in "the washington times." "obama policy on palestinian seace talks 'misguided' say rick perry." >> there middle east policy of appeasement has encouraged such an ominous at the bad faith. simply put, we would not be here today at this very press this of such a dangerous move if the obama policy -- at this press

this of such a dangerous move if the obama policy was not misguided and dangerous. host: "the washington times" says mitt romney also criticized the administration, calling the palestinian effort an " unmitigated, diplomatic disaster." "if the palestinian authority succeeds, the u.s. should consider cutting foreign assistance to the palestinians and reevaluate its funding of un programs."

we are talking about the overall role of the u.n. in world affairs. tim, a democrat in el paso, texas. you are on the air. do not listen to your television. caller: good morning. first of all, i would like to applaud president obama and secretary clinton on the leadership. i think the role of the u.n. for one of the first times in about five years is about right. although, think current arab leadership needs to be expanded. because this role was used the right way -- what happens in libya and what happens in other countries around the world -- i think that's about right. with the palestinian issues, we

have to celebrate politics from real world issues. there's lots of politics in that. the palestinian-israeli situation did not get that way on president obama's watch. i think he is going in the right .irection i it has got to have a fair share of participation. host: we are talking about the role of the u.n. in world affairs. if you want to send us a twitter, go to twitter .comcspanwj. here is one from seattle.

host: steer from melvyn, a democrat in nashville, tennessee. melvin, good morning. we are listening. what are your thoughts? caller: there's a saying that says that before you tear down a fence, make sure you understand why it was put down in the first place. the u.n. is a good organization. we cannot fight every battered -- fight every battle that occurs in the world. i think it's a fine move that the president did. it's a message to america that we need all the nations to come together where we have conflicts, under, or whatever problems we have in the world. everyone needs to participate. yes, we pay a larger share of the funding. do not look at everything from a

monetary sense. it's an opportunity for the world to come together. the u.n. is a good organization. host: that is the topic this morning, the role of the u.n. in world affairs. the caller was referring to president obama's speech yesterday, touting libya as a model of what can happen when we come together. a previous caller brought up agenda 21 at the u.n.. this is from the u.n. website. it says -- "agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally, and locally." clearwater, florida. joy is an independent. what do you think the role of the u.n. is? good morning. caller: good morning. i do not hear many people

talking about how the jewish state was created. they came to agreement with the jews that they would have their land, but they were not allowed to -- host: you have to turn the television down. you are hearing yourself. that is what is confusing you. caller: all right. they are not allowed to invite people from all over the world. the jews agree with that. within two weeks or so, they had a ship -- host: joy, for those that are familiar with what you're talking about, fast forward to the role of -- the role of the u.n. in world affairs. what does that mean, the middle east peace process, what does that mean about the u.n. and the

role that it placed? caller: well, as i said, no one talks about how the jewish state started. everybody should understand it. the reason they did that, the palestinians that have some land. the united nations should bear this in mind and see that the palestinians at least have their own land. host: david is a democrat in seattle. good morning, david. caller: generally, the u.n. has done a good job. we had a u.n. declared war in korea in the 1950's. we led the way. a lot of countries came in to

help us out. britain, canada, and other countries. i think the un has done a wonderful job in africa. you do not hear a lot about that. they've done a lot that would not have happened if they have not have been there. host: what have you read? what sort of figures are out there that make you think it is a success? caller: well, mrs. roosevelt, she was in charge of the u.n.. she backed up a lot of the things that the u.n. did. she was one of the first people to get started. adlai stevenson was in there. she pushed him to get in there and do a lot of things. it goes way back. host: john is a republican in jacksonville, north carolina. good morning, john. you are on the air. caller: i believe the u.n.

should be disbanded. the actions that the u.n. takes, they do not have the authority to do so. what i mean by that -- i am retired military. i was in bosnia during the clinton thing. a lot of the actions that the u.s. takes, the use the u.n. as cover that -- cover for actions that the president wants to take. nobody in the united states voted for the u.n. what i mean by that, the people of the united states. the appointees who are representing us there are also not voted on by the people of the united states, so i do not think there is representation by the people within the united nations, so why is the united

nations given the authority to do something as an independent- like nation? it is not a nation. host: john, since you were in bosnia under the clinton administration, what are your thoughts on that situation compared to libya and how we acted in libya using the u.n.? caller: illegal war. a lot of people in america do not realize there was an army soldier in bosnia who refuse to wear the united nations parade. he was court-martialed because he refused to wear the united nations uniform. he did not swear to defend the united nations. he swore to defend the united states. for that, he was court-

martialed. that was all swept under the rug. i was there when all that happened. i was on the ship when they were telling us that we would have to wear the u.n. blue berets. you might as well put a target on your head. there's a reason why we have a thing called camouflage. host: was that the situation in bosnia for you? caller: in bosnia, the whole thing about it was -- was bosnia attacking the united states? host: all right. caller: when you look at the military, our military is to defend the united states and our interests overseas. libya did not attack the united states. there was nothing.

host: we got your point, john. that was john from jacksonville. he served in bosnia. we're asking you about the role of the u.n. in world affairs. if you want to post a comment on our facebook page, go to facebook.com/cspan. this is from the u.n. web site this morning. you can go there. "the general assembly shall meet every year in regular session, commencing on the tuesday on the third week in september, accounting from the third week that contains one working day." that's why they meet in september. part of their rules. "the rules provide that -- the president of the previous session or the chairman of the

delegation shall preside. there is a minute of silent prayer or meditation. the president shall invite the representatives for one minute of silence dedicated to prayer or meditation." a little bit about the u.n. general assembly and its opening session today in new york. coverage on c- span3, as well as our web site, c-span.org. coverage begins around 9:00 a.m. eastern time. french president nicolas sarkozy is expected to speak at 10:30 eastern time. medvedev is expected to speak at 12:30. bill, a democrat in kentucky.

good morning. caller: you are on the air. -- host: you are on the air. caller: ever since vietname -- i am a vet. i have been watching the united nations. they have us do the dirty work and they do the peaceful stuff. if they did not do that, they would not be the united nations. as far as going back to the israeli and palestinian thing, they have been fighting for 4000 years and you are not going to stop these people. even when you get them settled down, they will decide to go on and start fighting and killing each other. they are just nuts over there. host: grand rapids, michigan. steve, good morning good morning. caller: good morning. i heard your earlier comment about comment about -- i

heard your earlier comment about the budget being very small. host: that's what advocates say. in comparison, about $5 billion. it is smaller compared to government's overall budget, as well as corporations. caller: i think you are very naive in the fact that when we want the u.n. to vote our way, we literally drive all these other countries, -- we bribe all these other countries, and we spend millions more than that to get the boat to go our way. when we do get a vote in the u.n., the united states carries the major weight. we use all our supplies, all our troops. you are wrong with the money. host: where did you find this data? where did you find the stated

that the u.n. uses money to bribe. the united states, excuse me. caller: there are so many backdoor deals. if you vote our way, we will build you this dam, or we will do this or that. that goes on all the time. host: where have you read that? caller: where have i read that? that's just common knowledge. host: an independent in baltimore. what are your thoughts on the role of the u.n.? caller: personally, i think the u.n. is completely useless. looking at iraq, north korea, they passed a resolution after resolution that says -- stop doing what ever you are doing that we do not like. they do not do anything to stop it. they are a complete joke. you have got the u.n. human-

rights council that's now chaired by -- i want to say north korea. i'm not exactly sure. you have the u.n. panel on racism that turned into nothing more than a format for anyone who wanted to take a cheap shot at israel. i genuinely question what purpose the u.n. service. i am a veteran. i've been in the military for 14 years, and the army, and i have deployed numerous times on u.n. -supposed missions. every time i was in a foreign country, i cannot count the number of times when people said, "what are you doing here?" not just american soldiers. french, british, australian. every one of them are like, "why

are we here?" these guys did not do anything to us. host: "the hill" newspaper has this headline. "here they go again: the threat of shut down." "the washington times" has this about this story.

"democrats oppose the program cuts, saying it could cost thousands of jobs." host: that is the second democrat in the house, steny hoyer. "$7 billion for fema would need 60 votes."

that is the latest on disaster aid and possibly the threat of another government shut down in the house. here is the front page of "the washington post" this morning. "u.s. creating a ring of sacred drones -- of secret drones." host: it is a lengthy piece in "the washington post" if you are interested in that. back to your phone calls on the role of the u.n. in world affairs. james is next. he is in michigan. good morning. caller: good morning.

i have a comment about the two gop leaders, mitt romney and rick perry, stating the fact ult. obama is to fall why do the republicans think obama's responsible for everything that goes on in the world? without the gop, the senate, the house, he could do nothing. host: john, a republican in massachusetts. what is the role of the u.n. in world affairs? caller: i'm going to change from republican to independent. the role of the u.n. is where all the puppet masters of all the corporations and all the rich people go down there to basically try to find ways to get their point across, but then they go back and they manipulate their people in their countries

and then you have the united states. we have to have the patriot act when we are doing business with these people all over the world. then you wonder why the government is always underfunded when it comes to the epa or any thing, because these corporations have to dump and pollute. when you sue them, they want to limit the lawsuits to a six certain amount. same thing with medical operations and corporations. it's a bunch of puppet masters trying to control the masses of the world. host: many of you probably heard about the attack on rabbani, who was president of afghanistan from 1992 to 1996. there is the picture in "the washington post." it says --

"president obama amin the current president of afghanistan, hamid karzai, at the u.n., talked about the assassination yesterday." >> he had been a valued adviser i, madeident carkarza enormous contributions. we want to extend our heartfelt condolences to you, his family, and the people of afghanistan.

i think we both believe -- we will not be deterred from creating a path where by afghans can live in freedom, in safety, security, and prosperity. >> we do miss him very much. he was among the few people in afghanistan with the distinction that we cannot easily find in society. as you rightly say, this will not deter us. host: president obama and afghanistan's president yesterday talking about the assassination of the former president of afghanistan, the one who has been negotiating peace between the taliban and the karzai government. you're getting your take on the role of the u.n. in world affairs.

here's a look at the u.n. membership. 192 members. 50 countries signed the u.n. charter in 1945. there are five permanent members, u.s., but russia, china, the uk, and france. the u.s. pays 22% of the total budget, or just over $1 billion. the european union, japan, and the u.s. pay about 80% of the u.n. annual budget. what is the role of the u.n. in world affairs? we will go to maryland. an independent caller, go ahead. caller: i have than to the u.n. i want to correct earlier callers. the conflict in the palestine started 63 years ago when the eritish started to be raeras palestine. it was similar to the south african apartheid idea.

palestinians were ethnically cleansed and now live in refugee camps. host: what is the context of your comment? caller: this week's vote on palestine will tell us what the direction of the united nations, whether it needs to be disbanded, whether the third world needs to make its own u.n., because the way the u.n. serves as a tool of and imperialist power to maintain this global apartheid -- going back to this south africa -- the u.n. says if you have brown skin or tanned skin, you cannot have nuclear weapons, like iran. if you are white, you can have all the weapons you want.

host: that is the color's thoughts -- the caller's thoughts. more news from capitol hill. rollfront page of "wil call" as this. "alexander takes a step back." there he is in this picture with senator thune. and then the front page of "politico." they say his decision to quit his leadership post was "widely interpreted as a rebuke of party politics." next to that is a sketch of eric schmidt, the head of google. he will face congressional critics today.

we will have live coverage of that today on c-span3. go to c-span.org for more information on that. anita, a republican in illinois. caller: i agree with the caller from maryland. the u.n. plays an important part in people taking over other people's land. i appreciate someone understanding and making that statement. there are a lot of folks -- european and british living in africa and other countries and living very well. it is amazing how they are always pretending to help, when you are just trying to rob folks. it is the same thing. it's just pitiful.

they have them doing all kinds of the meaning work, just like back in the day. host: "the washington post" has a piece about president obama's speech today, speaking before the united nations. last year, he supported a two- state solution. "obama will address the lack of progress in addressing the israeli-palestinian conflict." "the wall street journal" reporting this morning that the u.s. will move to delay the for, palestinian's bid

statehood. if you're interested in that, read from "the wall street journal" this morning. "the washington post" says this. "a plurality of americans say the united states should recognize palestine as independent state." host: we will hear from mike next in texas, an independent. good morning. caller: good morning. the u.n. that wan't it the u.n. established the israeli state,

or authorized the israeli state? i do not see how, if the u.n. could do that for israel, why on earth we would fight the fact that they want to do that for the palestinians. maybe solve that conflict once and for all. host: there's another story in "the new york times" with this headline. it is a lengthy piece, if your interested in this issue and want to read more about it. that is "the new york times" front page. we want to give you more information. news on economy, bleeckeaker, in poll. on don't ask, don't tell, the policy that ended yesterday, here is "the washington times."

"u.s.a today" has the story. you probably heard about a satellite dive on friday -- that is how "usa today" puts it. also on "washington journal" yesterday, we told you the fed was meeting yesterday. they meet again today. if you are interested in wanting to know what the fed might do, "the baltimore sun" has this story. "is their magic of the fed's

sleeve?" house republicans have sent a letter to the federal reserve, asking them not to engage in further stimulus. we will go to matt in arlington, virginia. the role of the u.n. in world affairs. caller: hi. what an earlier caller said, bribes the u.n. in 2003, a lot of south american nations got trade deals right before and right after the vote -- very favorable trade deals. i think we should recognize that we have been telling the palestinians for a while that we want a palestinian state. now when they finally ask for one, everyone is freaking out. i find that hypocritical.

the world is going to notice. host: cnn is reporting that the american hikers in iran have been released. cnn reporting that. it is a story that has been fluctuating this morning. in about 45 minutes, charlie rangel, democrat of new york, will be joining us to president obama president obama's job and deficit plans. next, tim murphy, a republican from pennsylvania joins us to discuss upcoming solyndra hearing. we are learning yesterday that the executives of the company will take the fifth and not talk of that hearing. we will talk to tim murphy about that. we continue to let you know about c-span's studentcam contest. this year's theme, "the constitution and you." the deadline is january 20 to submit your video.

grand prize winners get $5,000. other prizes total about $50,000. for more information, go to the website, studentcam.org. we will be right back. ♪ ♪ >> williams jennings bryant, one

of the bestyears of his time and the best known politicians. ran for president three times and lost, but the changed political history. he's one of the event featured in "the contenders." learn more about the series and are upcoming programs at c- span.org/thecontenders. what our life coverage of the national book festival this weekend on booktv. saturday's highlights include eugene robinson, eric robin, and douglas waller. look for our entire national book festival schedule, including call-ins at booktv.

org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back with congressman tim murphy, a member of the energy and commerce committee. that committee is looking into solyndra, the solar power company. here is the headline in the papers this morning. "the new york times" and all the papers. what happened here? what is the background story? they agree to testify and now they will invoke the fifth. guest: we know the fbi is investigating. the concern is that, with this $535 loan, which was given in segments, the law that was set up in the 2005 energy bill said a couple of things. in order for a company to qualify for a loan, there had to

be reasonable expectation they could pay back the principal and interest. they had to be able to complete the project. on the loan, the taxpayers could not be subordinate to any other investors. if the company did go bankrupt, the taxpayers got paid back first. the question that i assume might be being looked into by the fbi and that our committee wants to know is, was any misleading information given, or was any misleading information held that solyndra could not pay back this loan? the market that is used to make solar panels -- spain, germany, and other countries subsidize that. there's a big demand for paula silicone. that meant the price went up. as long as the price went up, panels weresolar cheaper. spain stopped subsidizing.

china began making cheeping ones. the price declined. from the e-mails we have seen, it showed solyndra was no longer competitive. i think that's why the loan committee in january 2009 said this is not going to work. then things started happening. they got the loan again. in 2011 this year, they got an extra $70 million from the taxpayer. we were wondering why. many indications were that they were not going to make it. in september 2009, the department of energy said this company would be bankrupt and would not have enough assets by september 2011. they declared bankruptcy this month. and: we have seen ceo's others come before committees and invoke the fifth. what happens? where do you go from there?

guest: we're still putting questions on the record, which are important for taxpayers to hear. who knew what? what were their intentions? even if they're not going to answer those questions, we want to make sure the taxpayers know we are headed down this road. we also think it is a way of making sure the justice department and the attorney general are investigating this. just what are they looking for? why is the fbi involved? what is treasury doing? host: are those folks testifying, as well? guest: know, they are not. there may be questions. so far, energy and commerce, because it is the energy and commerce committee. we will see where these things go. we will continue to probe and find out, basically, what happened to the money? host: that's the question. i think there was one article that said solyndra executives do not think they will be able to pay it all back.

guest: someone is going to get the money. if there's the subordination clause -- my reading of the lot is that it is not illegal. we will need other judges to weigh in. i want to know that our attorney general is acting on behalf of the taxpayer. if they are not, will there be private attorneys out there that will quite frankly sue the federal government? host: have you talked to anybody about doing that? guest: i have best attorneys about that. many have told me the taxpayers would have a standing. host: what about state attorneys? guest: state attorney general's might do that, also. it affects commerce. it is a concern. host: does that make good

politics, as well? guest: who knows what they might do. certainly, i know that in the last week, the amount of comments i have heard from people everywhere is that they really feel at this point, maybe congress is really taking action to fight for them. what i find interesting, too, people say it is only 1% of the fund. taxpayers see that as staggering. $535 million, what are you going to do? it's a huge amount of money. host: republicans themselves have advocated for some of these loans. there are people who believe in nuclear energy to advocate for loans to that industry. the argument is, it is a risk. they cannot get off the ground without this kind of support. when you take that risk, you're going to lose some of the money. guest: those types of programs have some merit.

banks, often times, their concerns -- these programs go on for years and years. sometimes you're talking about billions to build a nuclear power plant. it's an issue of long-term issues. i'm not talking about getting rid of the program. it is a matter of how you weigh the risk. was there something done here that hid the factors that were out there? the questions i had for jonathan swift, who manages the department of energy, who okayed this? raised thee i question, who is in charge. it's not the overall program. has to do with something done wrong in the process of this loan. host: it brings up the issue of -- should somebody lose their job over this? should somebody's head role at the administration.

should chu take responsibility for this? guest: i asked mr. swift if he had information from secretary chu and he said no. i do not know who is involved. either somebody was misled by outside forces -- that's the part we have to fix, so the whole program does not fall apart. host: if you find out somebody is to blame for this, should that person go? guest: if they sure to responsibility, that should be part of the outcome. i still think we have to pursue the route that if somebody, some other private investors get their money first, that does not fly with me. host: does the justice department decide and go after the money? who will go after the money? guest: i'm not an attorney. where i have been advised, the question whether the contracts for the loan is null and void -- because, if a contract is

based upon violating the law, it's not a contract. the clause from the energy bill says you cannot subordinate that taxpayers, that may violate the loan. host: here is "the washington post." it says there are now four investigations into solyndra. are there too many taxpayer dollars focused on this? guest: if solyndra was coming clean, we would not need this investigation. we needed to subpoena the records from the department of energy because they would not give them. once we got the records, we found the e-mails and the communications between the people of the department of energy and solyndra, and within

the department of energy saying that this loan is going to -- that this loan is not ready and that the company would run out of money. if someone had done their work ahead of time, we would not need this investigation. but there may be $535 million that may be lost. host: democrats on the committee have sent two to the chairman of these oversight committee. first of all, they want the committee to have those that invested to the tune of $1 billion each to testify as to why they gave money to solyndra. perhaps there is evidence that they can provide that they saw this as a viable operation. and that is why they went forward with their money. guest: the other issue, if that was viable, then who pushed for the switch of that taxpayer

money. mr. kaiser put together these loans and that government put in tax payer money. but you're right, we need not know the details of the time line. who was included in the decision making? host: they also wrote a letter to congressman cliff stearns in that two months ago, the chief executive officer met with us to assures that solyndra was in a strong financial position of chairman and in no danger of failing. what happens when they -- obviously not under oath, but they went before committee members and said that they were fine? guest: which committee members? it is a matter that they have nothing to hide, then let us talk about it. they need to come out and into to the taxpayers what happened. host: a phone call from

connecticut, you're up first with representative timothy murphy. caller: i agree that these guys had testified. i want to make it clear that from my knowledge and in looking at this, it was the bush administration's people that started this and looked at this throughout. and also, this kaiser was not personally invested in this. the foundation he was part of an the waltons were behind it. host: we need some explanation there. he talked about kaiser and the waltons. guest: yes, this program was started under the bush administration. yes, there were people involved in the department of energy there reviewed this long. they said no. like lazarus that rose again from the debt, a few weeks

later, what was the new information? and it did not in there in january 2009. other indications came through. i want to make sure that we are not doing -- no political senate against. that is not the situation. the people involved with the bush and monestrous and said that there were not enough information and they were not getting it. well as the information and who knew what was going on -- what was the information and who on the inside knew what was going on? who set out that the tax payers would take a back seat and the investors would get their money first? if that is the case, that changes the dynamic. with the kaisers and walton's have kept their investment in if they were the first to lose?

that is important to find out. host: is the effort to get these investors before the committee? guest: it is worthwhile. what information did they have? is there in firm -- is there information that they are not sharing? who knows? host: i tweet from a shell. -- a tweet from michele. guest: we have been investigating for years what china's involvement has been. thena characteristically ed same -- several things or they send minted medical, diapers, children's toys, lunch boxes, dry wall, all of these things.

but also what they are involved with is manipulation of currency, and this is extremely important. when they manipulate their currency, they want, against the dollar, they undermine our manufacturing market. i'm ok if they want to compete in that fair and free market across the war. but they do several things to manipulate that. and that is something that the federal government should take action on. i have testified saying that i'm concerned about their manipulation of products. sometimes they have found in favor. if that is part of it, that is important, too. but it was clear that china was moving product into the united states at a cheaper rate, which meant that solyndra was no longer competitive. while or spending more money there? it was still going to fall apart. host: shenandoah, pa., you are on the air. caller: you have listed as a

republican, i am actually a democrat. what prompted me to call is representative murphy sounded just fine with sending public money to support nuclear power. i think that it's just a bad idea. we have three nuclear power plants or the courts are burned out. we have a typhoon or hurricane over there right this minute. nuclear power plants are a money pit. i do not think the public money should go to something that is so dangerous. we also do not hear about it on the news. guest: thank you for bringing that up. china is building nuclear power plants by the scores, and well over 100 and using u.s. technology, westinghouse toshiba

being one of the primary sources. and the world leaders and nuclear technology are westinghouse, ge, and some other companies. we have got to become more energy independent instead of spending billions of dollars -- sending billions of dollars to opec countries to use that sometimes to pay al qaeda and hurt our soldiers. we also need clean energy. and we can go a number of directions. whether ribbies solar or wind, use it, and natural gas, nuclear is also important and clean coal. but with regard to that, sometimes the rules and regulations are so rigid that takes up much time that banks do not want to invest in these areas. i think that we should be building more nuclear, and the new technology is far safer, such as new westinghouse, and we

need systems that take care of them. what has happened in japan and what happened with the tsunami and in other places, those things that the nuclear energy is looking at. they want to assure public safety. but it as a matter of china advancing on their technology and building these things. because of the risk and the years it takes to comply with federal regulations, to have the federal government said it will guarantee some loans, but it is not just the loan program itself. it has to be done in a way that shows that the company is viable and they can do it. if the risk is too high, we do not go into it. host: from dallas, an independent scholar -- caller. caller: you do for racking up there where you're from. -- youtube fra -- you do

fracking where you're from? guest: yes. caller: t. boone pickens does natural gas and then it comes up with a solar panels. guest: he did some things with seller and natural gas. we have abundant resources. what he is referring to is that the u.s. says massive amounts of natural gas. by using a technique called fracking, i in parts of western ohio and new york, they will go down, going into a layer of shale, factoring it, and the natural gas comes out. refractor -- fracturing it, and the natural gas comes out. many products come from that, rather than importing natural

gas. just a couple of years ago, they were talking of building a liquefied natural gas pipe from the coast where casket coming from other countries. now we can talk about exporting it. it is an abundant energy resources, but we need a portfolio, and menu if you will, of energy options for this country so that we're not so dependent on other countries. we saw what happened to the ukraine when russia pull the plug. i want us to be able to sustain ourselves. host: when you look at the solyndra loan, and the solyndra executives are scheduled to testify friday before the committee and is expected to invoke the fifth. but would you compare that loan to legislation that was introduced in the 112th congress called and that gas act -- called the nat gas at, an

estimated $5 billion price tag. when you look at that price tag, can we afford to be spending that kind of money and then turning around and investigating something that costs $535 million? guest: a great question and here is how they work. opec raised money when mr. carter was president, and so they are manipulating the market like any monopoly does. in the 1970's we were concerned that we were importing 40% of oil, and now is over 60%. they will continue to manipulate the market. the united states has to say enough is enough. we have abundant supplies of oil and natural gas. how do we start using our own?

guest: why can the industry do it on its own? why did they need taxpayer money? guest: there is a conversion and is needed for that. it is similar to what the government did with hybrid vehicles, only that was 60,000 vehicles and not enough to make a difference. at this point it is not competitive, but if you have a police vehicle, everything from buses to truck deliveries -- delivery trucks and garbage trucks, you can make investments and really reduce the amount of oil that we bring from other countries like saudi arabia. the idea was to create incentives and that builds enough of our infrastructure for that. a lot of fuel stations do not have natural gas. host: isn't that a stimulus? guest: it's making investments and something that will make a

massive payout. host: but that is a stimulus. you invest. guest: the stimulus they came out before was government jobs, shovel-ready projects. that was not a long-term transition. what that stimulus bill did not do, yes -- how was the united states going to become energy independent? when you spend that kind of money on it, when we continue to lose jobs to china because we are not looking at how we can invest, that is a problem. we cannot continue to say we can watch these jobs go away. host: pat is a democrat. we're talking to congressman timothy murphy. caller: a first-time caller to cnn. host: c-span. caller: excuse me.

congressman, do not think this is just the republican flavor of the month? there been so many huge issues that have involved ripoffs that to me, to go after the small company, it seems to me to be the republican flavor of the month. guest: i hope that is not the case. to a lot of people, $535 million is a lot of money. i know that another project that a lot of democrats are concerned about this. we have to look at where waste is involved. all of those things should cause all of us great concern. and we ought to be working on that together for that is how to clean and government. and that is our concern with

congress during its role. this is one of those elements. a lot of people are not saying, let's stop all these programs. we have to clean them up or stop them. when congress said we're not going to do earmarks any more, the reason for that was that they became political. they became ways of buying votes. some projects are very good, and other elements were not being done because people in washington and not understand. sometimes it became questionable. so we said let's stop at that. the question is, do they become other sorts of year marks when the department of agriculture spends five under million dollars worth of grants and loans to various types of projects. when they have almost $10 billion worth of other loans to deal with in the department of energy in the next few days before the end of september, we want strong oversight.

we want to make sure that they are doing what they are supposed to. and what the solyndra case brings forward is recognizing that we have to put these programs under the microscope. one of the questions i asked jonathan swift -- he was the gentleman that came before the energy and commerce committee in charge of these loans. host: at the department of energy. guest: i had asked him on questioning had even managed investments bigger than this. he said, yes, we had. given that, he would of been a good purpose scrutinize that. that is what we ought to be doing, not republicans or democrats, but do these things right or do not do them all. host: 8 tweet related to that. guest: i do not know all the details of the technology. i would not pretend i was a solar engineer. but it was enticing because it look like their product would be

less expensive. when the silicon market drop, opt-in solyndra was no longer going to be cost competitive host: another tweet. can you speak to that? guest: i do not think they were trying to make jump panels. the question becomes at some point, are we investing in something that is not going to work. something that is no longer state of the art, something that is not cost competitive. why invest in something that no one is going to buy? it is good for the nation and moves us toward energy independence, that is an area of question. host: a republican in north tennessee. caller: what we have here is a pay for play. this date done better to the president had access to the white house like warren buffett.

he lays down his money before obama and he did send to the pot and gives them money. everything that has obama as fingerprints on it, but what change in january 2009 was obama was inaugurated. do not let the democrats distract you from the problem. the problem of politics coming out of this white house and this is our money and we are fed up with it. guest: i do not know what people's motives are in their heart. but we have to follow the facts in this case. i said before that i was talking about jonathan silver, not jonathan swift. it is a matter of what all these people knew and what they were following. if the facts lead as in some direction that someone was withholding information purposefully or misleading someone, the facts will speak for themselves. there's political intrigue on all sides.

and it makes things interesting for the media, but our job is to get to the bottom of this for taxpayers. host: vancouver, washington, the independent line. caller: a lot like to say thank you for c-span. when i was in iraq, i was in the 110th fighter wing and i would say there's some of the finest people i would ever want to serve with. guest: thank you for your service. host: i do see all of this is plain politics. when i was in iraq, i was watching money getting wasted left and right and no one was going after anybody for that. unfortunately, this led to a lot of american deaths and casualties. we had guys stepping in the showers and getting electrocuted and killed. the iraqis had an unemployment rate of about 80% because they are watching all of these

private contractors who are supposed to be helping. guest: he is bringing up a good point. when the federal government is spending $3.5 trillion all over the year, you have people using the system. that is why we have to make sure we're constantly watching these things. it is not a matter of saying, let's not do anything and close of the capital and go home. how're we going to do it right? when americans see waste, fraud, and abuse, and a lot of what we discover is because ordinary americans come up and say, did you know this was taking place? the points that you're bringing up, jim, is a very important. we caught many of those contractors and many more things will come out over time. it is because people like kay was stick -- quite gem was speaking up. -- like jim was speaking up.

host: do you think that there should be another committee on top of the treasury department, that just as the garment, the energy and commerce committee, four whether the investigation is looking into this? about fivealking investigations. guest: it is good from the standpoint that people are investigating. our committee has jurisdiction over the fda and, the commerce, energy, the epa, and other committees have their jurisdiction as well. it is worthwhile to do this and it all comes to this point -- if the federal money -- that the federal government is investing taxpayer money, we ought to be doing it right. if that is not been doing right,

i do not care who is in the white house or the speaker's chair, we need to do it right. i would hope that everyone would want to see this change. host: how much money have we spent on this loan guarantee program for all industries? guest: i forget what that number was. tens of billions of dollars. there is $9.1 billion left to go before the end of september. the money was advanced in the stimulus bill. host: a republican collar. -- caller. caller: i have a question for you. we are picking and choosing as to what we invest in and i am all in favor in solid investment. it seems like this was an investment that has gone back for what we have seen now. but i am also a u.s. marine, and

i'm interested in the $12 billion that was lost in iraq, and i want someone going after this money in iraq. we're looking at $500 million vs $12 billion, i think my taxpayer dollars worth much more lost in iraq than what is your investment. i want someone looking at the spirit if we're honest about what we're doing, i want to turn over every rock and look for the big bucks. guest: thank you for your service. god bless the marines. you talk about committees, the house arms services needs to look at this, whatever rolde river. we have to constantly look at these things. we cannot be cavalier about it. much of this is looking back at the waist in the medicare program, something i have been fighting for years, the whole program designed in a way that it will continue to waste money

until we retool that. often government sets off on a plan and not changing it. the devil we know is better than the devil we do not know. i did not like that idea. when we had sibelius' in front of our committee, and would you design -- and asked her if she would design medicare the way that it is today, she said no. we need to clean ramallah. host: a few minutes left with you. we will go to an independent scholar -- caller. put this in the proper perspective for the bush administration kept wall street's $700 billion, and what did we get for the $700 billion? how many banks failed still as a result of being part of the $700

billion loans and how many homeowners could not stay in their houses? how many small businesses still cannot get loans right now from an industry that we gave $700 billion to? guest: i reflect back on what john f. kennedy said, and i'm paraphrasing. he thought government was really messed up until he got involved with it and realized how bad it really was. some of the banks were not going to make it. some of the bank's did not need it and they were forced to take it. government often overreaches. that is all of our concern for most of the housing program is pushing the bank thing, trying to push homes and -- tried to put people in the homes that they could not afford -- that was wrong, too. we need to have the right investigations and make sure there is no waste, fraud, and abuse taking place. government has important

functions but when we start saying -- investing in things that will not last, that is the concern. the frustration that they all have, i agree. let's go to the valuable programs. host: a democratic caller from alabama. caller: one simple question. why is $500 million more important than that $12 billion that we lost in iraq? guest: they are all important. they are all born free some of the issues with the money lost in iraq is a board. but let us not to manage this. 535 billion -- $535 million is a lot of money to a lot of people. let's not say that because it is only $535 million, it is not worth investigating. it is.

if something was wrong in the process, let's clean up the process. that is why we're going to have the ceo's in front of us and that is why we are investigating. host: benjamin in pennsylvania. the air with're on congressman timothy murphy. caller: the talk is that a lot of people are really angry about this, to put it mildly, about $535 million. most people are saying that the new thedministration k circumstances and about solyndra and there were told to not invest the money, but it went ahead, anyway. my question to you -- what you think about people saying that this will be obama's watergate? guest: i do not know.

this is party intrigue that people look into. in our committee investigation, we want to find out the facts on this. we will see. host: last phone call, rick, a republican in ohio. caller: i like to commend him for getting a straight answer him. could you explain why that democratic members seem to be defending those folks? especially the gentleman from michigan. while he was eating a sandwich. host: we did have henry waxman on our show this past sunday, and he did the phone look -- defend the loan guarantee program, but he said that solyndra should be looking -- should be investigated. guest: it is not about all loan guarantees or all subsidies.

if we do it, it has to be done right. it cannot turn into a political earmarked for the sake of the taxpayers, i want to get his money back. host: and the committee will hear from the solyndra execs in person on friday, from the reports this morning, we understand they will invoke the fifth. guest: we hope that they would change their mind and give us some facts. the taxpayers deserve to get their money back. host: as someone talking to them about changing their minds? guest: i'm sure discussion is taking place with their attorneys. host: thank you for being with us. in 45 minutes, we continue our spotlights on magazines. this week is the "weekly standard," the september 12 issue of that. up next is charlie rangel from new york. before we take a break, we want to let you know about @

cspannow. this allows you to find out what is airing on all three networks by following is there. and remember to follow us at @ cspanwj. >> ahead of obama is addressed to the general assembly, the ambassador to united nations is calling the palestinian push for recognition and on lies and diversionary get very speaking today on cbs, ambassador ryan said the administration is concerned about a great gap between the expectations of the palestinian people and the reality of the situation. meanwhile, investors around the world are watching to see whether the federal reserve will act to stimulate the u.s. economy today. the fed wraping up at two-day

meeting, most expecting a the fed to shift money out of short- term securities into longer- term holdings. that could push rates on mortgages and other loans down. activists making a last-minute appeal to the state of georgia to stop a scheduled execution of troy davis. amnesty international and other groups are planning to protest outside the u.s. embassy in paris. mr. davis said that he was innocent in 1989 killing of an off-duty police officer. his attorneys are filing a last- minute appeal. the execution is scheduled for tonight. those are some of the headlines on c-span radio. >> which part of the u.s. constitution is important to you? that is our question in this year's studentcam competition. make a video documentary five to eight minutes long and tell us the part of the constitution that is important to you and why. be sure to include more than one point of view and video of c-span programming. entries are due by january 20,

2012. there's $50,000 in total prizes and a grand prize of $5,000. for all the details, go to -- studentcam.org. >> the c-span network -- we provide politics and public affairs. this month, look for congress to continue federal spending into november, including funding for recent natural disasters. keep tabs on the deficit committee as a formulate a plan to lower the debt. all the presidential campaigns across the country. it is available to you on television, radio, on-line, and social media sites. search our video library. we are on the road with our digital bus and local content vehicles, bringing our resources to local communities and showing events around the country. the c-span networks -- created by cable, provided as a public

service. [guitar music continues] >> spend this weekend in charlotte, north carolina with book tv and american history tv. throughout the weekend, the history and literary life from the site of the 2012 democratic convention. on book tv on c-span2, charlotte's banking industry. karen cox on "dreaming of dixie -- how the south was created in the american popular culture." we also visit the park road bookstore to learn about the relationship with the independent bookstores and publishers. and on american history tv on c-span3, tour 11th president james polk's birthplace, a discussion with charles jones,

the civil rights leader on his part in the 1960's lunch counter sit-ins, and visit the reed gold mine where gold was first discovered in america. book tv and american history tv in charlotte, north carolina next weekend on c-span2 and c- span3. >> "washington journal" continues. byt: we're joined now democratic congressman charles rangel to talk about the new deficit reduction plan that the president introduced on monday. you've been around for 40 years and seen a lot of these plans introduced. is this a serious plan or as republicans have said, it is a plan aimed at the 2012 election? guest: i am glad that we do have a plan. i am glad that people have something that they can talk about. i am glad that the unemployed and the homeless would know that the congress has not forgotten

them. quite frankly, i do not believe that he has anyone to discuss the plan with. plans are not just given to the congress. plans are discussed, hearings are held, positions are made. we need to know that people are working together and working out our differences. when the majority in the house, the republicans, tell the president and head of time and when the senate leaders say that they are going to reject all revenues, moving the post away from any kind of talking, that is not a solution to the problem. it may turn out unfortunately to be 2012, because you need someone to talk with. host: if you want to talk to congressman rangel, call us on these telephone lines.

if you are outside the u.s. as well. let's go over some of these republican concerns. there are fundamental differences with the program that the president introduced on monday. the star with raising taxes right now. it is a jobs killer, said the republicans. it is a small business people that could invest to create jobs in america. your thoughts? guest: my overall plot is that this is a perfect chance for the guy in the street, the religious leaders, the business leaders, those concerned more about the economic future of our country, then just 2012 and the election, and quite frankly, they have been silent. as relates to this historic low tax that we have on the wealthiest americans, it has not proven in the past nor has it been proven recently that they

have created any jobs. there is no proof that they create jobs. and the banks are not loaning the money, after the tax pairs had already bailed them out. if you want to create jobs, it appears to me that you have to have people with priestesses -- with the resources to purchase commodity and they need to continue to sell and hire people for jobs. but if you say that you just have to cut spending and not raise revenue at the beginning, as the republicans have said -- host: the republicans say that it is a spending problem that washington has. speaker boehner set that raising taxes and giving the government more money is like giving a cocaine addict more cocaine. guest: we have just as much rhetoric as they have. i do not see how they will help get people back to work.

we are going back and forth. why don't they bring the bill to the committee of jurisdiction and respect the 12-member super committee, and have economists talk about what we're doing here? it is just so unfair, but people they had now lost the opportunity to think that they are going to get a job, to hear this badgering back-and-forth about this is a spending thing, people have to understand it, and it just seems like people in the first grade. not all spending cuts save money. and it is true that there are a lot of things that we can and should be doing, but the fact remains that if you close programs, if you cut back programs, if you put into the street all lot of policemen and firefighters and teachers and people that work on these programs, if you make it impossible for people to meet their needs, who is going to

sell anything to them? and if you do not have them buying and selling, you do not have an economy. you want to talk rhetoric? i am prepared to do it, based on the seemingly unfair tactic of saying that the wealthy pay a much lower rates as we probably will get into warren buffett and his secretary. if you work hard every day, you should pay the same rate as the people making investment. host: is the president leading out key elements that they say are the main drain on the economy, the entitlement programs? there are cuts to medicare and medicaid in this package. guest: you said earlier that i have been here for 40 years. i've never seen any president present to congress a program that is expected. the way that you say did you

should of had social security or i do not like this tax deduction or this tax increase, it is to put your hand out, send it to a committee, have republicans and democrats argue about it, argued on the floor, but talking rhetoric about what they do not like without having won the republican bill that we can be -- one republican bill that we can be critical of, and they should be getting us back to work in growing the economy. i cannot believe that everyone had benefits under the president's program are democrats. host: does the president have the time to have that back-and- forth with committees, that they have to have propose a lot of that committee by essentially thanksgiving, and that the early part of that program to get

scored by the congressional budget office, we're talking about the beginning of november? guest: that is the tight timetable. i would not know if we unfortunately cut across the board without the ability to consider the impact of those cuts as it will have on the economy. is the dumbest thing -- it is the dumbest thing i've ever heard of it with all respect to the 12 members of the super committee, they are no substitute for the 435 members. host: didn't they have that responsibility during the debt ceiling debate, and isn't that the solution that they came up with? guest: who put it up -- who came up with it? when they put the president's backing up against the wall -- host: should we give it back to that congress and let them

debated on the floor? guest: do not give up on the congress. the truth of the matter is that this president has been treated with such disrespect, and you do not know how many times and neither do i that i voted to raise the debt ceiling. to deny the president of the united states, the leader of the pre-world, the opportunity to paid the money that we already borrowed, most of which had been barred by republicans, but it is the united states that has the obligations, it makes us look to the whole world as a very confused, it insecure country. i am very embarrassed, not only and how they performed in terms of the treatment of the president of the united states, but quite frankly when i see the republican debate, i'm embarrassed that the world will think that we have put our best foot forward with those who do not want obama as a president.

host: looking as some other republican commons, this is jeff sessions. his comment was, when you remove the gimmicks, you're left with only half of the $3 trillion that the white house promise. total federal spending, including the stimulus, will increase. he is talking about the gimmicks here. one of the ones that is always pointed out is that the president is claiming $1 trillion from the drawdown of the wars in afghanistan and iraq. is that fair for him to claim as part of this plane that -- plan that he is proposing? guest: it sounds a lot more fair than the bush administration saying that it would not cost a nickel. and they did not consider the price, much less the price of losing all these lights.

if you're talking about gimmicks and america being embalmed in war and rejecting a draft and having our young americans die when we know it is for oil and not for national security, no thought about gimmicks. you have hearings and if you have a gimmick, and when i was a chairman, you bet your life i was looking for gimmicks, but you have to have testimony. it is totally unfair to criticize the president's proposal without doing one of two things -- one, say i am taking your proposal, it does not make sense, we're going to have hearings on this. and two, which would we better, is that you must be kidding, mr. president, this is not going to work, but we will show you what we want to do. at least that gives some hope that there is a united congress. the partisanship taking place by handful of people in this

country, i think the prestige of our country is adversely affected. someone once said, can we talk? that is the essence of the future of the country. just talk and do not throw these bombs peabody -- these bonds. -- these boms. caller: i was wanting to say that i really like mr. ran gle, and it is a privilege to talk to him and to you. it's seems like it started in the reagan administration, the trickle down effect that he started, and now bush put $790 million and gave it to the rich. so it is trickle-down. i am still waiting for it to trickle-down and it hasn't ever

trickle-down yet. and that people ought to know what they're talking about, they are talking about getting rid of social security, unemployment, everything. to give to the rich. it is really unfair. guest: all i can say that what bailout of banks and they refuse to loan money, the disparity between the money that the poor have and the wealthy that have accumulated, records in terms of the population, it is a very scary thing. and this trickle-down theory has never worked and is unacceptable. even with people that believe in trickle-down, you should have hearings. you should engage the president, not just talk about it, which is the political thing to do. but why not take the president's program and talk about it, send it to the committee? host: layout or what -- lay out

for us what you would like to see in that two must before the deadline. if the committee does not come up, then a whole bunch of cuts will come into effect. guest: i think that trigger is after 2012. you know as i know the way that the constitution is written as far as the house of representatives is concerned, after 2012, everything stops. you can read-introduce things, did you do not carry things over. here is what i would like to do. i would like for speaker boehner and the minority leader in the senate to sit down with the president and say, listen, we have enough differences testified in 2012 for the policies that we would want. right now millions of americans are suffering. they are not democrats or republicans, they are not looking for an election, but

they do not go to sleep at night wondering about the debt ceiling. they want to know whether it will be possible for their kids to have a job, whether they will ever be retrained, whether or not we can get america back to the way she used to be, where we can at least not have luxuries but to have the middle class -- and it is not as though america started with the middle class -- to lose all the things that they saved in hope and dream for, that is not american values. talking about these things, that is my america and mike connors. host: brian from west virginia, you are on the air. caller: the republicans want to insinuate that the president and the democrats are some house secretly communists. but aren't they the ones that are trying to centralize all the money and all the political capital into a small group of people, while using a massive

work for similar -- the poor is a massive work force? guest: i haven't heard questions like that since joe mccarthy, because americans are common is because of their belief in a fair share. that is exactly what we do not need on either side. ridiculing some one's belief is not america, whether republican, or a democrat, and more and more independent. host: steve is of independent from connecticut. caller: i love your persona. you have a great person appear you are really interesting to watch on tv. america's businesses is not war. our business should not be focused on war. it should be focused on business.

i am on medium income earners, and it would make me -- take me close to 100 years to earn a million dollars. this idea of the wealthier job creators? is the idle rich, and let's be honest about it. you seem to have -- revenue raising seems to be off the table, for whatever reason. but what about restructuring that tax code? any possibility of that happening? host: that question has, on twitter as well. guest: and i was chairman, i was working very closely with the secretary of the treasury of the bush administration. but what did the republicans say? in our debt and have real tax reform, if you have to eliminate provisions within the code to give preferential treatment to some people and penalize other

people. and so when we went after loopholes, both in the corporate taxes and individual taxes, they screamed that i was trying to increase taxes. well if you get an unfair advantage of paying no taxes, then you are asking for increases in taxes. we can reduce the corporate rate to 26% if we started making everyone pay something. the 35% tax rate for corporations is absolutely ridiculous, but how many people do not even pay it because of the preferential treatment that they get? now comes the time, the president has suggested many reforms. but you need hearings, as i keep saying, because if you razor cut someone's taxes, if you have to know the ripple effects on everything that we do. and you have to have hearings. time is not on our side.

and keep you were going to treat every move of equity because it means someone is going to pay more taxes, albeit it equitable tax, then you cannot have reform. host: path, a republican from kentucky. caller: i am very confused and for quite awhile, ever since tarp, how much does a bank have to have an resort -- in reserve to put out loans? and they do not know, the federal government did not put down the rules, and then congressman rangel said this morning they are not lending, and then it just it's so confusing to me. i was wondering if he could clear that up. guest: one thing is that we had roles and no one enforced the rules. so in terms of what the banks were able to do, they had no

losses, they accepted the property that had no value, that packaged and sold it, so when they got caught and the market fell apart, who comes to their rescue except the big united states government. we save the fiscal system of the world. you would think that these bankers to make millions of dollars as personal income would be considered enough to say, now what can we do to put our economy back into a growth mode? but they do not take any risks at all after the american people took the risk of investing in them. if i had my way right now, we would mandate that banks are taking deposits to make loans. that is what they are in business for.

no one was to make sacrifices while so many people are out of work, but now, even the republicans want to take away the provisions that we put in there to protect taxpayers. so the answer to almost all of these questions, john, is that the president has thrown the ball to the american people. i really think that the republicans are getting away with murder by just being able to attack the president because they do not like him. we have been talking about the aged and the poor. every religion that you can mention says that this is the highest priority. protestant, catholic, jewish, mormon. and i do not think anyone challenges that the republicans want to get rid of the entitlements. they do not talk about repricing them. host: one thing they are upset about the lack of entitlement

programs and the present plan, they want more cuts to medicare and medicaid. there are some men there. here is a headline. is that something that you can get behind? i know your member of the congressional progressive caucus. the chairman of your caucus came out yesterday and put out a statement that they reject any cuts to medicare or medicaid. we reject the false assertions that deep cuts are needed in the programs that many americans rely on and we would hope that president bush would as well. guest: we hope so. the democratic majority, we cut medicare by 500 and billion dollars, they say. and then they turn around and forget that, they use that as a republican savings. the truth of the matter is, there are insurance companies

that have been ripping off the medicare system. when you go and say no more doing that, that is a savings. i do not know where the president intends to go in terms of raising this money out of medicaid and medicare. but i tell you one thing -- host: how will he get there? guest: how can he get there was so much problems in the congress? the best way to attack the plan is i do not believe that you can do this and get the support of the american people. i am not asking the american people to follow me in support the president. i am asking them to make certain that the congress works. if you're going to attack the plan, let the people know what you think is not going to work. people are hoping in dreaming that the congress are going to help them, get the private sector back to work. i am answering questions that

republicans have attacked, when i'm begging for them, let's see where the equities are, let's have the hearings. host: if the president asked you to go on the road and supports the plan, you're saying you would not do that? guest: if the west ask me that, unless we hear from the guy industry, our civic and local leaders, let's hear from our business people listed how we fall behind in technology, how we are competing with china and india, and most importantly in education. this is not just a question of a tax but laying off teachers at a time we find that buildings are crumbling, the president wants to rebuild the buildings, have infrastructure, build up the economy, make certain that we can compete with other

international competitors, and so you bet your life i would be honored to go by and to say i do not care whether you are independent, republican, or a democrat, for god's sake do not let 535 people screw up the economy. and that is where we are. we are stalled because we're more concerned about getting reelected than you are about taking risks in doing the right thing by america. in other countries, they just pull you out and shoot you. here, they get an opportunity to get rid of you as is done many times in recent history. host: is a the president or congress more concerned about getting reelected? guest: if you have faults with the president, don't just give political rhetoric why he is wrong, prove that he is wrong. come up with a plan. they have not had one bill at all.

there is still an opportunity for the american people to say, i am tired of their rhetoric. i do not want to hear about plans. i want to see some progress. i want my kids to go back to school and regain the integrity that i had as a working person. i want my the american dream is being shattered. the middle class of the country -- they are the ones that are the losers in the so-called debate. host: carol, a democrat from baltimore, maryland. caller: i just want to ask the question -- why do they call social security and entitlement when you pay into it? it's like putting money into a bank and you go to the bank and they tell you, "we don't have your money anymore." illegal.at the lega

i have been working since i was 14. it took money from me ever since i was young. now you will say, "we are not going to give it to you after you paid into its"? guest: i suppose it's a matter of semantics. since you have paid into it, the united states has a contract with you. you've paid into the social security and medicare. you are entitled once you become eligible for them. look at the bright side. they want to privatize what you are entitled to. the government made the promise. i would like to believe that

people like you that are concerned about the government, and especially health care, when entitlements," itemen sounds like a technical term. what is medicaid? it provides health care to the poor and sick. what is social security? it helps people when they are aged and cannot take care of themselves. what is medicare? it is helping sick folks recent. lee, people applauded one of the candidates for his supporting executions. i know they audience -- the audience applauded the fact. it seems like these principles are more moral than they are democratic issues. i have heard, you have heard, everybody that deals directly with god has heard that we have

a responsibility on this earth to protect the vulnerable, the board, the sick -- the poor, the sick, those who cannot take care of themselves. he is asking about entitlements. he should have been saying, what happens if i get sick? what happens if i retire? what happens if i am poor? is the government going to do anything because i am entitled? it's not only a legal entitlement, but a moral responsibility. if you are going to reduce it, do not turn it over to privatization. we are talking about human life. 6000 americans -- americans -- most of them coming from poor communities and do not have an

alternative to get a job. they enlist. they salute the flag. they go to countries that their parents never heard of. they put their lives at sacrifice. i go to the funerals. their parents do not even know where afghanistan and iraq are located. it's not right. it's not fair. it's not moral. we do not hear from our spiritual leaders. i'm 81. i do not want any problems with saint peter, but i hope he wakes up the people who are talking about our responsibility. if we have that from democrats and republicans, it would reach the standards that most americans think we should have. host: let's hear from more republicans. frank is a republican from michigan. go ahead. you are on the air. guest: hi, frank. host: frank, do you have a

question? guest: i need to hear the voice for michigan. host: let's move on to jules. guest: i really wanted to hear from a republican in michigan, who has the highest unemployment. big government rescues the unemployment industry. host: call back in, frank. jule on the independent line. caller: i would just like democrats and republicans, equally. i want to talk about israel, because i'm a jew. i do not like the way the president has handled israel. when he became the president, he moved -- he removed the bust of winston churchill from the oval office. why did he do that?

mr. tertial was instrumental when he drew the line for the middle east state -- mr. church ill was instrumental. i suggest mr. obama views it as a colonial entity. guest: i really think that -- the united states, economically, and for national security, joined at the hip. i really would have hoped that diplomatically, they can work out the differences of palestine and israel in the united nations. there's no winning if the u.n. does something in the u.s. of the doe's it. i have no idea what winston churchill has to do with this issue. once the president has said there's no way that we as

americans can afford to sacrifice or put in jeopardy the survival of israel -- there's no evidence to dispute is. america is israel's best friend. israel is certainly the best partner we have. host: another republican from spring, texas. guest: i did not say texas. i said michigan. i'm glad to hear from texas. i just left rick perry a couple of days ago. caller: yes, we have 11 million in this country. a lot of need of tax dollars in this country. would a flat tax help?

that way, everybody pays. we are allowing them to coming here. they are taking our jobs. with a flat tax -- would a flat tax help? guest: the should consider the issue of immigration. a guy does not risk his life coming to this country from any other country if they do not think they are going to get a job. as a matter of fact, our unemployment rates have reduced the number of people coming into our country legally. we have got to deal with the question of aliens. 11 million aliens, if they just disappeared, i think that would hit hard our agriculture

industry, landscaping, there are so many jobs that are held by people who are not documented. we are not thinking about deporting them. we cannot put them in jail. we cannot send them back to mexico or wherever they come from. in our country, we are a land of immigrants. from the beginning of the birth of this country, the group that gets secure -- the next group is looking for the same thing. host: i want to hear about your conversation with rick perry, who is running for president on the republican nomination. you showed up for an event on monday in your district. did you know he was there? did you have any idea? guest: no. i am in my district and i hear on the radio station that rick perry is going to visit some of my contaiconstituents, i thoughd

they named the place. they did not say it was a fund- raiser. they just said he's going to be there. what did i do? i went there. i thought he was inside. he was not. host: you met him outside. guest: no, i met him inside. he came in after word. when it became abundantly clear, after i was introduced as someone whose great in the congressional district, and a host -- and the host was a longtime friend of mine. i told rick that this is the congressional district that is the most beautiful, i think, in the country. even though we politically disagree with you, we still welcome you to come and discuss these issues. host: president obama won that

district with 93%. does he have a chance in your district? guest: of course not. the more they get to know rick perry, the better chances there are they will come out and vote for president obama. plan --e president's they will turn down -- are they leaving no room for any sort of discussion? guest: that is a political answer. it is a dumb answer. it flies in the face of reason. they are concerned about spending and they get 10-to- one, they felt they had to say something ridiculous. host: what do you think the ratio should be? guest: it should be fair. if they spending and a revenue problem. the ratio has to be the one that

produces the most money in terms of creating the jobs, making the investments, and at the same time, reducing our deficit. you cannot do it with percentages. sometimes you have to spend money in order to make money. the answer to all of these questions, which are very good questions, we normally get at what? at a hearing. host: a hearing that we may not have time to do now. guest: weekend do some of the things the president has recommended, in terms of closing loopholes. the senate has not responded. if we can get together, they can only talk with the president. they cannot lose by talking with the president. they cannot reject everything the president says. has said hisnell

primary objective is to get rid of obama. if you listen to the debates, they do not talk about job creation. they talk about how they dislike obama. they are entitled to that, but not at the expense of the economic growth of this country. host: an independent from north carolina, philip. good morning. caller: good morning, gentlemen. your name is john. john and representative rangel, i appreciate you taking time for our calls today. in a 43-year-old man. i have had three strokes. i am very interested in what has been going on with medicates he. the reason being is because i do volunteer work with a large group of senior adults who very

much rely on medicaid to live. some of these adults are strokes survivors. some are part attack survivors. >host: do you have a question, not to rush you? caller: that is okay. i'd like to say to the congressman, i appreciate the kind of person he is. he has a wonderful heart. i just wanted to ask him to continue in his work with all of his gusto. he reminds me a lot of the late great senator, ted kennedy. host: let's go to john on on the line for democrats. guest: 43-year-old, three

strokes, that's what the president's health care program is all about, to make sure we prevent these things from happening. that's what the president's proposals for affordable health care are all about. host: john on the democratic line from missouri. caller: good morning. the next time you speak to the president, tell him i've heard for the first time the words i've been wanting to hear ever since he was elected, which is "veto." stop these republicans. in response to cutting education to teachers, you expect him to pay teachers to destroy their base, the uneducated? thank you very much. guest: thank you. that's why i'm so optimistic that people like the poor will have an opportunity, regardless

of their affiliation, to express this to their elected officials. that's where we -- that is what we are therefore. host: when he talks about the threat of veto, do you think he is done moderating on this? from april through the course of the summer, was it a different tone from the president? guest: of course it is a different tone. each time the republicans say they want to do something, they do not do anything. they reject everything. the president cannot be wrong on everything. they have rejected everything he has said. it seems to me that the president is now saying, i'm going to veto it. of course, the american people have to decide whether or not the republicans are being fair to the constitution, and being fair to the country, rather than just having their focus on 2012. host: we have to leave it there.

next, our weekly spot light on going green. first, an update from c-span radio. >> the international monetary fund says the global financial system is more vulnerable than at any point since the 2008 financial crisis. it went on to say there's growing doubt about the u.s. and they're a lot makers finding consensus. an update on the two american hikers jailed until arouin tehr. the two men have been released. they were arrested along the iran-iraq border in 2009. diplomats from switzerland are standing by at the prison, waiting to pick them up. twitter will begin selling

political advertising for the first time this week. the president of global revenue for twitter says, "we are excited about the election cycle and we think ads are a great opportunity." authorities in michigan are on the scene of a car bomb, where three individuals have been seriously injured. monroe police confirmed the investigation of a car bomb detonated last night around 5:30. law enforcement agencies are on the scene. a news conference is scheduled for later this morning. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> which part of the u.s. constitution is important to you? that's our question in this year's studentcam competition. make a video documentary and tell us the part of the constitution that is important to you and why. be sure to include more than one point of view and video of c- span programming.

there's $50,000 in total prizes and a grand prize of $5,000. for all the details, go to studentcam.org. >> the c-span networks. we provide coverage of politics, public affairs, nonfiction books, and american history. look for congress to continue federal spending into november, including funding for recent natural disasters. keep tabs on the deficit committee as they formulate a plan to lower the debt. follow the presidential candidates as they continue to campaign across the country. on television, radio, online, and social media sites. search, what, and share any time .ith c-span's video library we are on the road with the c- span digital bus. it is washington, your way. this c-span networks, created by cable, provided as a public service.

♪ spent >> this weekend in charlotte, n.c. -- >> spent this weekend in charlotte, n.c. bankingv, charlotte's industry with the author of "banktwon." also, a visit to park wrote books -- park road books. tour james polk's birthplace and

a discussion with charles jones. visit the gold mines where gold was first discovered in america. book tv and american history tv on c-span2 and c-span3. >> "washington journal" continues. host: every wednesday on "washington journal" in our last hour of the program, we will be taking a look at the recent magazine piece, perhaps one that has been overlooked. today we're looking at a recent "the weekly standard" article written by eli lehrer and benjamin schreiber. it is called "go green by cutting government. you can find the article on our web site. they join us at the table this morning. eli lehrer, let me begin with you. you are the vice president of heartland institute, a free- market think tank. use a selective government

spending can help the environment and the reason why is simple. explain that. guest: the reason why cuts to government spending can help the government is simple. the government is the biggest entity around. a consumes a quarter of our gdp, has more vehicles, buys more things, employs more people, than anyone else. as a result, the things government does has an outside impact on the entire world. that includes the natural environment. host: have come together with benjamin schreiber's group, friends of the earth. explain to us why eliminating some of the programs would help the environment. what kind of programs are we talking about? guest: thank you. friends of the earth thinks there's an important role for government in promoting clean energy and clean technology and

regulating pollution. unfortunately, not all government spending is good spending. there are a host of programs that are bad for the environment. government programs like subsidize timber roads, where tax payer dollars help timber companies extract timber off of our natural resources. we pay the cost. these programs do not make sense for taxpayers and they are harmful to the environment. fruitis a low hanging grou where we can come to an agreement. host: strange bedfellows. eli lehrer, walk us through how much money we are talking about. he says it is low hanging fruit. how much money is it? >guest: $380 billion.

all of these programs make things worse for people as a whole and worse for our common homeland but natural environment. host: about 1/3 of $1 trillion. the super committee has to come up with about $1.2 trillion in savings. have you presented this to the super committee to say, "here's an area where the two sides can agree and make some cuts"? our real target is the super committee. we want everybody to see this. the super committee is really where we are focused. we're doing events in many super committee districts. various groups have had meetings

with super committee staff. there's obviously quite a lot of demand. host: ben schreiber, house republicans want to put forward legislation dealing with streamlining them or delaying them. guest: this is not a report about eliminating regulations or cutting core environmental programs. programs that are harmful for the environment that we are funding, as well as tax incentives and other giveaways. one of the things in the report right now is that we have oil and gas on public lands and we are giving it away to oil companies for free without making them pay royalties.

we are literally letting them extract oil and gas from public lands for free without paying a dime to taxpayers. these are the type of subsidies that do not make sense, especially when we're talking about cutting teachers' in the super committee. >> you referred to a report. want to show our viewers that. you can find it on our website. eli lehrer, what groups came together on this? guest: friends of the earth, public citizen, a consumer advocate group founded by ralph nader, taxpayers for common sense, and my organization, the heartland institute. it is about as diverse and broad a coalition as you can get. the environmental regulations ben was just speaking about -- heartland would probably support

most, if not all, of what republicans will be proposing in terms of regulation. friends of the earth would oppose most of that. on these things, on the spending priorities, we are 100% in agreement. host: have you talked to members of the super committee? might what you testified? guest: yes. host: when? guest: obviously, there's an enormous demand for the time of the committee. we have had meetings with staffers. some groups have had member- level meetings. we are hoping to get as much as possible -- as much attention as possible. we have not yet been invited. host: ben schreiber, let me dig into the report and the article. you list about $61 billion in fossil fuel subsidies just for the clean coal industry. or the coal industry?

is that right? guest: it is conventional fossil fuels. friends of the earth does not support programs like the one in illinois. they should be eliminated. they do not make sense environmentally or fiscally. tons of money is still going to conventional coal. host: what tops the list is $27 billion in last-in, first-out accounting. can you explain that? guest: it is an accounting gimmick where people love large stockpiles of a commodity -- people who have large stockpiles of a commodity, in this case oil, they can say that they are selling the commodity that they

got most recently. they differ the tax burden for decades or indefinitely. this cost taxpayers a massive amount of money and it doesn't make any sense. obviously, not all that money comes from the oil and gas industry. this is a reform we think would make sense across the board. host: another area on the chopping block for you all is direct subsidies to commodity crop growers. roughly around $12.5 billion per year. why is that on your list? guest: commodity crop subsidies are not as big as a lot of people think. this is fairly small in terms of the deficit. this is what -- this is ridiculous. crops and we give subsidies, many of them to make the crops more expensive. it makes no sense to subsidize a product that is grown widely,

that's available everywhere, that there's no shortage of. this is the absolute last thing you want to subsidize. the only people benefiting from it are [inaudible] host: what is the damage to the environment? guest: we are increasing our corn production and our production of big commodity crops in the united states. that means increased pesticide use, increased land erosion and soil erosion. this is a direct result of the dead zone in the gulf of mexico. there's a huge environmental thadownside to our agriculture system. host: barbara joins us. she's a democrat in spring, texas. good morning, barbara. you are on the air. what is your question or comment? caller: the republicans are talking about using our resources in the united states

and becoming, like, oil [inaudible] in our own country and not having imported oil. from what i understand, the rate we use oil is 25% of all the oil on the planet. is it true that we could have our own oil supply? the pipelineng, sounds awfully dangerous. with all this yakking going on about the united states being able to sustain ourselves with our own resources -- host: barbara, i think we got your point. ben schreiber, do you want to take that one? guest: we currently use 25% of

the world's oil and we have 3% of the world's known oil reserves. it's difficult to imagine the math working in any way so that we will become oil independent in the near or long term future. that said, one of the things that highlighted in the report is that the oil we have the honor federal land is going to oil and gas countries -- have on our federal land is going to oil and gas companies for free. they are charging us $4 per gallon at the pump. it makes no sense that we are giving them tens of billions of dollars of subsidies every year to drill. host: eli lehrer, does your group agree with that? guest: we are totally against subsidies for basically any [inaudible]

even if we could, and i agree it would be very difficult for the west to not import any oil, -- for the u.s. to import any oil, it would not be any different. the idea of total energy independence with fossil fuels is impossible. host: the heartland institute is a free-market think tank and eli lehrer is there vice president. ben schreiber is a climate and energy tax analyst. an article ineco-wrote "weekly standard." doug is an independent in melbourne, florida. good morning. caller: the comment about the roads anad timber -- did he

ever think that maybe those guys in minnesota that are fighting the fires could appreciate some roads? one was the last time you two mowed your lawn? how much did that cost in energy? did you guys drive to the studio this morning? how much did that cost? host: ben schreiber? guest: there are roads that make sense for fighting fires and they are necessary. that does not mean that we should be subsidizing logging corporations by building timber roads for them in our national parks. they want to log our timber, they should pay the cost of building those roads and constructing the intelligence commuinfrastructure. the american taxpayer loses money. it just does not make any sense at all. host: kelly, a republican in

tampa, florida. caller: thank you for taking my call. thank you for your positive ideas. the stance of the administration that people who use cars are polluters, how do we get around that and get to a n agreement where we subsidize green investments, as well as oil -- oil is a tangible resources that we use on a daily basis, as opposed to wind and solar. host: eli lehrer? guest: i agree with almost everything you said. this does go after a lot of those subsidies. one of the largest category of cuts is cuts to alternative energy. the report proposes cuts to things like the enormously wasteful ethanol subsidies, the enormous research boondoggle,

the credits for hybrid cars -- all of these things are in the report. the purpose of the report is to focus on things that are environmentally harmful and wasteful. there are tons of programs that are wasteful, but i cannot reasonably argue are environmentally harmful. there are solar subsidies, for example. i would love to get rid of them and i think they are wasteful. do they harm the environment? i do not think there's a good case they harm the environment. that's the focus of this report. in fact, a lot of the supposedly green subsidies are in fact harmful to the environment. we talked about cutting those subsidies as well. host: go ahead. guest: eli and i have a lot of different opinions on a lot of

things. this report is an area of consensus, where we can agree. that's what makes it powerful. we have such diverse viewpoints about the role of government, about the role of subsidies, and probably the role of energy. two groups like ours can agree. host: you agree that smaller government, in some cases, is better for the government. guest: correct. one of the largest subsidies is going to corn ethanol. that basically $6 billion per year that we are wasting on a commodity that's not only mandated by law -- we're basically giving them a subsidy to do something that is required by law -- but is also harmful for the environment. friends of the earth thinks there are a lot of green technologies that do need to be subsidized. a lot of the money that's going to the so-called green subsidies is just wasteful. host: let me show our viewers

what you put under the list of alternative energy subsidies. you just said there are some loan guarantee your programs you might argue for. what are you talking about here? $51 billion. what type of programs? guest: this has been in the news a lot. this is the loan guarantee program that the republicans are beating up because of the solyndra guarantee that went belly-up. the reason friends of earth hates this program is because a lot of this program will be going to nuclear reactors -- host: about $22 billion. guest: about $22.5 will find new reactors or uranium reactor programs. most of these things are bad. the money going to solar

expires september 30. it was a temporary stimulus program. this program will be left in place -- really terrible fossil fuel projects, as well. host: you agree it should be gone. guest: heartland is against the idea of virtually any subsidy whatsoever to business, to energy. while i am totally in favor of building more nuclear power plants in this country myself, i think that should be done with private companies, not our tax dollars. host: let's hear from michael in tennessee. caller: i think they're exactly right on most of what they are saying. this type of work should be done a long time ago. these hearings that are being held on the solar company that went bankrupt -- is a wasted. should be on the type of things

they're talking about today, not wasting time that we do not have. host: paul, a republican in ohio. what do you think? caller: why isn't anti matter technology being developed? host: benjamin, are you familiar? guest: no. guest: nor am i. host: an independent in clearwater, florida. caller: thank you for taking my call. the ethanol subsidies basically hurt your small farmers and independent farmers. it's a subsidy that helps the bigger farmers to have less competition for their corn growth, in my research. my big question is this. we're pushing for the lithium battery operated car to help carbon monoxide reduction. i would like you to explain to the viewers how we will get lithium and was we will do

with these batteries? thank you, c-span. guest: i'm not an expert on battery technology. my understanding, there would be a toxic waste problems associated with lithium battery cars. i know there is already a problem with lithium batteries in laptops. the amount of pollution might be less than what we get from cars using fossil fuels. host: what about the economic argument? for investing. lithium batteries for cars is something the president has been investing in. guest: it may well be a good thing to invest in. the technology seems very promising. i do not think, personally, that the federal government should be doing product development at all. it isery hard to think --

very hard to think of a consumer product that you buy -- host: the internet? guest: the internet was developed through the government, but the consumer products, browsers, were developed at the private sector. host: ben? guest: this is one of the areas we will disagree. we think battery technology is a very promising area to be researching right now. we really do need to figure out alternatives to fossil fuels. battery technology is one of the many solutions to getting there. we hope that we develop that. government programs are important part of that. we also recognize there are a host of problems with many of these technologies, so we need to continue to figure out how to deal with them in a responsible fashion. we do not want to, for

instance, do nuclear reactors, which have a massive waste problem, just because we have a problem with climate change. we do not want to make the environment worst to solve one problem that's already there. host: your list of subsidies -- the total is about $96 billion that could be saved. we talked about the loan guarantee program. below that is about $38 billion for -- what is that? guest: that is the corn ethanol gas credit. we subsidize every gallon of corn ethanol that we use today, to the tune of 45 cents per gallon. it is a massive subsidy that is basically been a fighting -- basically benefiting lenders of corn ethanol. it's not to the producers. it goes to the corn companies that blended with gasoline. the hope is that it will get

passed down to farmers. it's going to companies that are mandated by law to use this product. it's a wonderful product at that point. host: we talked earlier about commodity crop subsidies. let me show you what the two groups put together, which is part of this "weekly standard" article. the total for crop subsidies that they say could be on the chopping block, $56.6 billion. george is next, a democrat in west virginia. caller: yes, i am on? host: you are on. caller: in a coal miner. for 40 years, i worked in mines. you know what the environment really means to me. i have seen some of the mountains in the state of west for geneva -- western virginia good jobs.

i'm sitting in a good home. i have four vehicles. i'm going to give you all the credit to coal miners. i know it is not environmentally sound. talking on the phone and everyone is looking at you, if you know what i'm saying. host: ben schreiber? guest: we want to create an environment where you can be earning the same living with wind turbines and solar panels. the reality is there's a downside to coal mining, especially with strip mining. there is a downside. it's great that you have air conditioning and four vehicles. we are glad other people are

helping, as well. host: eli lehrer? guest: there are impacts of coal mining. a lot of it does do environmental damage. the place where i disagree with ben is that as long as the cost of that damage are paid by whoever does it, people have the right to do with their private property whatever they wanted if they on the mountains and do without any government subsidies, that includes strip mining. that said, our policies are not policies that say you can do what you want with your private property. their policy say the government will help you. i do not see any reason why the government should help. host: here is a tweet for you, eli.

do you guest: know this is a giant push by the corn industry to increase the amount of ethanol we are using in our cars. it will have a negative impact on small engines, things like boats, lawnmowers, and older vehicles. it will increase the amount of corn ethanol we are consuming and the amount of corn production going towards fuel. this is basically an illustration of how powerful the corn lobby is in washington, d.c. every one of the subsidies has a powerful lobby in washington, d.c. behind it. while we agree these are the low hanging fruit and make sense, there are powerful special interests behind every one of these subsidies. host: eli, aren't we also talking about jobs?

guest: of course the subsidies create some jobs. any job that is created is created only by taxing somebody else. in some cases, when it comes to national defense or basic infrastructure, you do not want to do those things. most government subsidies create jobs. they also destroyed a job somewhere else. better to have the private sector make those decisions. host: let's go to lou on the line for republicans. caller: this whole environmental movement today has become the new pagan religious cults. yes, i believe in climate change. it's called winter, spring, summer, and fall.

we've been freezing for the last two weeks down here, ok. host: let me turn to transportation and the subsidies for that industry, ben schreiber. the total comes to $106.5 billion that could be saved. when you look at individual ones, let's look at the big ticket ones. guest: we have a gas tax in the united states and the purpose is to pay for road intelligence community -- road infrastructure. we have refused to raise the gas tax since the 1970's. the result is that we can no longer fund the infrastructure that we want to build. that does not even include maintaining the projects we want to build. we have a massive backlog, as well.

we are basically putting taxpayer dollars into the highway trust fund to build new roads because we are not willing to increase the gasoline tax. the proposal is to stop the federal government from transferring money into the highway trust fund so we would have less money available, unless they want to -- have less money available. host: on the line for democrats, tracy in miami. good morning. caller: i keep hearing taxpayers, taxpayers, tax payers. it would be nice to think the only -- some kind of a new song. i want to commend friends of the earth with their report. i think it is awesome that some sort of report is out there. applaud, as well, to heartland institute, which will give an argument to what is being produced, so the taxpayer can

really see what's going on, so we can formulate some sort of direction towards remedying the situation overall with our economy. to c-span, thanks for presenting this. host: bill, a republican in good morning georgia good, bill. caller: i find the common ground to these two gentlemen have found is absolutely refreshing. i could listen to these guys for hours. the 40-year states when you had on earlier, i turned off after 30 seconds. we have created, by searching for a low-cost labor market, an ecological nightmare in china. eventually, we are going to pay for this. host: why do you say that?

explain a little bit more. is the american way. we save everybody from themselves, but we have created a nightmare we will end up paying for. host: what is the ecological? ? caller: there are no regulations as to disposal of chemicals, air quality. it's a mess. host: ben schreiber? guest: i agree there is an ecological nightmare in china, and we see that in the united states, as well. we have seen tainted products make their way to the united states. the fact that china does not have the environmental protections that we in the united states enjoy is a serious concern. that said, the united states is still the largest user of fossil

fuel. we still use tons of fertilizer on our corn. we still need to clean up our environment here in the united states and look at our own house and get that in order, as well. host: eli lehrer, china might be light on regulations, but they do heavily subsidize a lot of their industries. in order to compete with china, why not subsidize our industries? caller: -- guest: subsidies from the government never work. we are subsidizing on a per capita basis much more than they are. this is not even close, the amount we are subsidizing. host: sheila on the line for independents. caller: i have two subjects to comment on. i have a great solution, i hope, for ending global warming. i say there should be no more drive-ups at fast food places.

i say this to all the people. stop being so lazy. walk into the place. it will help the environment and you will get some exercise. host: we will go to robert next in florida on the line for democrats. caller: hello. host: good morning, robert. caller: the thing to increase the economy, to increase jobs by building artificial reservoirs. mccaffrey hydroelectric power. they can also build high-speed electric trains alongside interstate highways to eliminate needless airline flights, which also increase the debt. they should leave the plane's to oversee flights. the free fusion reactor in the sky -- they could be using solar power.

they should increase r &d by making more efficient solar cells and batteries. host: let me show you a list of potential cuts that these two groups agreed upon. about $15.2 billion of cuts. they deal with land and water subsidies. you touched on timber subsidies before. also topping the list is the upper mississippi river project. enter harbor -- inter-harbor navigation canals. the list goes on. who benefits from this? are we talking about army corps of engineers subsidies? guest: we are talking about two categories in the public lands spear. the first is army corps projects that are massive and wasteful. they have a history of being and environmentally harmful. the army corps is the

organization creating big progress to justify its own existence at this point. the other big category is subsidies for timber development or other resource-extraction on our public lands. that's things like timber growth, tax credits for producing timber, and the 1872 mining law, which basically gives away our minerals, like gold, for free. just like we talked about royalty-free leases for gold. host: we have another tweet. this person wants to know -- guest: they are virtually the same. . subsidies and tax credits, this is something that many of my fellow conservatives i think have trouble understanding. subsidies and tax cuts, and 99

cases out of 100, have the same economic effect. host: do they come from the same theory of being a stimulus? guest: yes, it's the same underlying theory. they do everything the same way, except they have different levels -- different labels on them. people who share my ideas say tax subsidies are good and the others are bad. they're both on the same skill. conservatives should reject both of them. guest: they actually get a tax break and it stays on the books forever. they do not have to get it free appropriated every year. they do not have to go through the hurdles every year. many of those companies would rather have a tax break than a handout. host: jim is a republican in

milwaukee. good morning. caller: the bureau of land management auctions off oil and gas leases, especially in the west, and they get hundreds of millions of dollars per year on these leases. when there is oil and gas produced on these lands, they get 12.5% of what is produced. earlier, i heard somebody say they do not get anything. guest: there are some leases -- most of the leases in the united states -- we do receive payment. there are a whole host of leases in the gulf of mexico where we are giving out oil and gas royalties for free. those are the ones we're talking about. we have not talked about those leases in this report because they are getting money from taxpayers. those are -- we can disagree about whether or not they should be given out, but those are not

royalty free leases. guest: i would add to this that there are a variety of things you might do that our corporate waste. i think we might have disagreements on what you should do. some should be conserved. some should be leased under different terms. my judgment, if the real thing is going to be for the private sector to explain them, then they should be sold by the private-sector. host: one of the other guests -- guest: one of the other areas is low cost grazing, where we are allowing public lands to be used by cattle ranchers and other animal agriculture folks at below the cost and below the cost of food oil lands that are owned by the state. this makes no sense for us to lease public land below their value. value. guest: